gavin at gavinsharp.com
Sat Aug 10 23:06:38 UTC 2013
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 1:33 AM, Dão Gottwald <dao at design-noir.de> wrote:
> I think you're overusing this argument a bit. Users' experiences don't need
> to be reflective of the general user base to be worth supporting -- at least
> not at Mozilla. For instance, accessibility is one of Mozilla's key values
> even though lacking accessibility usually only affects minorities.
Sure, it's not only the size of the population making use of a feature
that needs to be taken into account, but also the feature's
criticality to that population (and also to some degree, the features
alignment with our values, as you suggest). I don't think image
blocking is as critical to users as our accessibility support, though.
> It didn't and still doesn't make sense to me that we acknowledged that
> there's a real and sensible use case for disabling images (slow connections,
> data plans etc.), which may be essential to how some people access the
> internet, but that this use case would be better supported by a dedicated
> bandwidth saving mode, and that the option to disable images could therefore
> go away -- without the hypothetical replacement being available.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/image-block/ seems like
a much better option for these users than the checkbox we used to have
in the preferences pane.
More information about the firefox-dev